Mumbai Court July 1919 Judgments
Mulchand Raichand Vs. Gill and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR963
Heaton, J.1. A Bijapur firm filed a suit in the Court of the First Class Sub-Judge at Bijapur against Gill & Co. of Bombay. Shortly afterwards Gill & Co. filed a suit in the High Court against the Bijapur Firm. The latter applied that the proceedings in the High Court suit should be stayed under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, and Gill & Co. retorted by asking for an injunction restraining the Bijapur Firm from proceeding with the suit in the Bijapur Court. The Judge of this Court, who heard the matter, held that Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code did not apply and that an injunction should be issued as asked for by Gill & Co. He ordered accordingly and the Bijapur Firm have appealed.2. If Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies then the Bijapur suit must proceed, for it was first filed, and the High Court Suit must be stayed. Does Section 10 apply In order that it may apply there must be substantial identity between the matter in dispute in the second suit and th...
Tag this Judgment!Wolf and Sons Vs. Dadiba Khimji and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR986; 58Ind.Cas.465
Marten, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Macleod of the 12th December 1918 dismissing the plaintiffs' claim in this suit and allowing the defendants' counter-claim. On the figures since agreed, the amount of the claim is Rs. 69,467-9-0 representing the nett proceeds of sale of certain cotton blankets. The amount of the counterclaim is Rs. 58,440-9-0 representing part of the nett proceeds of sale of certain cotton bales. The aggregate amount in dispute is therefore Rs. 1,27,908. This sum represents the amount alleged to have been owing to the defendants on the security of the blankets and bales, which were pledged to them for differences on certain cotton contracts. The plaintiffs say these pledges and contracts became or were illegal and void, having regard to the outbreak of war at 11 P.M. on 4th August 1914, and that they are entitled to recover the sale proceeds of the blankets which were sold by the defendants in and prior to 1915, and to retain the sale proc...
Tag this Judgment!The Fort Press Co. Ltd. Vs. the Municipal Corporation of the City of B ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR1014; 58Ind.Cas.621
Marten, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant Company from the judgment of Mr. Justice Macleod, dated the 24th February 1919, in favour of the plaintiffs, the Bombay Municipality. The case arises out of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the compulsory acquisition of the defendants' land by the Bombay Municipality for public purposes. The real points before US are whether in law a binding agreement as to the amount of the compensation can ever be made between the Municipality and a laud-owner, before the Collector has made his award. If so, has such an agreement been made in the present case, and how is it to be enforced 2. The agreement relied on by the Municipality is contained in two documents of the 12th September 1917, the first being what is alleged to be an otter on behalf of the defendant Company, and the second being an acceptance by the Municipality of that otter, which acceptance was subsequently communicated to the defendants at a Meeting before the Col...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Kashiram Tamboli Vs. Shankar Ganpat Shimpi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR39
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from the decision of Mr. Justice Batchelor. The trial Court had admitted evidence led by the defendant to show that the two mortgages in the suit were discharged by the mortgagee by a payment of Rs. 800. It was argued in appeal that this evidence was inadmissible on the ground that it rescinded or modified the contract required to be in writing which had been registered according to law. The learned appellate Judge has held that the evidence called and received was directed to a totally different purpose, namely, the purpose of showing that these contracts of mortgage had been terminated by the discharge of the obligation imposed by them, and he saw nothing in Section 92 prohibiting the admission of such evidence. We have been referred to the recent case of Mallappa v. Matuin Nagu Chetty I.L.R(1902) Mad. 195 which seems to be exactly on all fours with the present case. The head-note runs: 'A subsequent oral agreemen...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath and Two ors., Sons and Heirs of the Deceased Kashiram Manira ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR64Bom55
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from the decision of Mr. Justice Batchelor. The trial Court had admitted evidence led by the defendant to show that the two mortgages in the suit were discharged by the mortgagee by a payment of Rs. 800. It was argued in appeal that this evidence was inadmissible on the ground that it rescinded or modified the contract required to be in writing which had been registered according to law. The learned appellate Judge has held that the evidence called and received was directed to a totally different purpose, namely, the purpose of showing that these contracts of mortgage had been terminated by the discharge of the obligation imposed by them, and he saw nothing in Section 92 prohibiting the admission of such evidence. We have been referred to the recent case of Mallappa v. Matum Nagu Chetty (1918) 42 Mad. 41. which seems to be exactly on all fours with the present case. The head-note runs: 'A subsequent oral agreement to tak...
Tag this Judgment!Jivraj Baloo Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. Vs. Champsey Bhara and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR1037
Macleod, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of Pratt J.2. The appellants, the Jivraj Baloo Spinning and Weaving Co, Ltd., filed a petition to set aside an award in favour of the respondents Messrs. Champsey Bhara & Co. which had been made in the following circumstances.3. On the 17th August 1918 the respondents contracted to sell to the appellants 100 bales New Machine Ginned Fully Good Mundra Cotton at Rs. 905 a candy, delivery 1st October to 25th November.4. On the 4th September 1918, a similar contract was made for the sale of 100 bales at Rs. 950 a candy. Both the said contracts were subject to the Rules and Regulations of the Bombay Cotton Trade Association, Ltd.5. Against the said contracts the respondents tendered cotton. Surveys were held and in each case the arbitrators made awards giving an allowance of Rs. 10-8-0 per candy. These awards were confirmed on appeal by the Appeal Committee. Rule 52 of the Bombay Cotton Trade Association Rules lays down what are the buyer'...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Laxman Gokhale Vs. Hirachand Mancharam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Bom154; (1919)21BOMLR1047
Macleod, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of Marten J. dismissing the suit which the plaintiff had filed praying that the defendant might be ordered to specifically perform an alleged agreement dated the 28th November 1917 and to do all acts necessary for carrying out his part of the agreement.2. The facts are not in dispute and the evidence in the case is purely documentary.3. On the 28th November 1917 the plaintiff and defendant drew up two writings in Gujarati which are Exts. A and A I in the case. It is admitted that for all intents and purposes the documents are in identical terms. Exh. A was signed by the defendant and Exh. AI by the plaintiff. The plaintiff contended that those two documents constituted a complete agreement for the sale by the defendant to the plaintiff of a certain property for Rs. 2,15,000. Looking at the documents this would at first sight appear obvious. They contain the names of the parties, the description of the property to be sold, the price to...
Tag this Judgment!Rao Kishore Singh Vs. Musammat Gahenabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR507
Atkinson, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Judicial Commissioner of the Central Provinces on appeal from the District Court of Nimar reversing a judgment of the latter Court in an action in which the present appellant was plaintiff and the present respondents were defendants. The fact that the respondents have not appeared on the hearing of the appeal before this Board, requires that the evidence, and the points raised in the case should be examined by their Lordships in more detail than would have been necessary, had counsel for both the appellant and the respondents appeared and presented their respective contentions to them.2. The action out of which the appeal has arisen was brought by the appellant, Rao Kishore Singh, to have it declared that he, as sole heir of his second cousin, Rao Himmat Singh, who died on the 16th October, 1906, was entitled to a certain estate, particulars of which are set out in detail in the schedules attached to the plaint, of which his sai...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Raghubar Singh Vs. Thakur Jai Indra Bahadur Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR521
Phillimore, J. 1. This is an appeal from the Court, of the Judicial Commissioner for Oudh.2. Thakur Balbhaddar Singh, Talukdar of Mahewa, died in December, 1898, intestate and childless, leaving the taluka and other property, and leaving a widow, Raghubans Kmiwar, and a brother, Sheo Singh.3. On his death his brother Sheo Singh took possession of all his property; but his widow, Raghubans Knnwar, brought a suit against Sheo Singh to recover the property in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Sitapur, and, on the Gth August 1902, obtained a decree for possession of the same.4. After she had obtained this decree the widow applied to be put into possession of the property in dispute, and she was given possession by an Order or the Subordinate Judge; upon her providing security to restore the inesne profits, to the extent of one lac of rupees. The persons who gave that security are or are now represented by the present appellants.5. The decision of the Subordinate Judge in favour of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Dhondo Vasudeo Kanitkar Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR247; 58Ind.Cas.198
Shah, J.1. The main point argued in this appeal is whether Section 217 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code applies when a survey settlement is introduced into an alienated village with the consent of the alienee under Bombay Act I of 1865 and when the period of the settlement has expired after the Land Revenue Code of 1879 came into force. It is conceded that if this point is decided against the appellant, the other points decided against him by the lower Court need not be gone into. We have, therefore, heard the pleaders on this point only; and as we have come to the conclusion that Section 217 would apply to such a village, it has not been necessary to hear the appellant's pleader on the other points.2. The facts relating to this point are few and undisputed. The survey settlement was extended to the village in question on the application of the Inamdar in the year 1870 under Bombay Act I of 1865 which was then in force. The period of this settlement expired in the year 1888. In 1879 the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »